UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 19, 2007
FLOYD MAY, ET.AL., PLAINTIFFS,
STEPHEN MOTE, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the January 23, 2007 Court Order granting defendants summary judgment motion. [d/e 96] A post-judgment motion seeking substantive relief from a judgment must be made pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's motion does not reference either section, but does appear to have been provided to prison officials within the ten business days of the court's ruling.
A Rule 59(e) motion "may only be granted if there has been a mistake of law or fact or new evidence has been discovered that is material and could not have been discovered previously." Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Miller, 966 F.2d 1178, 1180 (7th cir. 1992). The plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden. The plaintiffs simply disagree with the court's application of the law to the facts presented by the parties. The plaintiffs argument also ignores some of the evidence presented by the defendants in their motion. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the January 23, 2007 Court Order is denied. [d/e 96]
2) The plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is denied. [d/e 97]. This case is closed.
Enter this 19th day of September, 2007.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.